|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2020, 02:40:06 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderators: Where is my Freistaat Preußen avatar?, Apocrypha)
  1992: Buchanan vs. Clinton
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: 1992: Buchanan vs. Clinton  (Read 973 times)
White Trash
Southern Gothic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,923


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 02, 2017, 02:30:16 pm »

Pat Buchanan is somehow able to defeat Bush for the Republican nomination. Perot decides not to run and instead endorses Buchanan. Discuss with maps.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,393


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 02, 2017, 02:55:57 pm »

Clinton landslides Buchanan

In 1992 unlike 2016 foreign intervention was viewed positively , free trade was viewed more positively , and populism was getting less and less popular.





Clinton 471
Buchanan 67


Virginia barely stays GOP 

Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,991
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 02, 2017, 03:00:50 pm »
« Edited: September 02, 2017, 03:03:00 pm by MT Treasurer »



338 - 200
Logged
America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗
TexArkana
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,432
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 02, 2017, 03:06:40 pm »


No way in hell does Buchanan do that well. he'd be extremely lucky to even do as "Well" as H.W did.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,991
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 02, 2017, 03:58:34 pm »

No way in hell does Buchanan do that well. he'd be extremely lucky to even do as "Well" as H.W did.

Considering that he manages to beat an incumbent Republican president in the primary and gets the endorsement of Perot (who probably campaigns for him as well) in this scenario, I find it extremely unlikely that he would lose in a massive landslide. I also disagree with the assertion that populism was terribly unpopular in 1992.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,393


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 02, 2017, 05:42:34 pm »

No way in hell does Buchanan do that well. he'd be extremely lucky to even do as "Well" as H.W did.

Considering that he manages to beat an incumbent Republican president in the primary and gets the endorsement of Perot (who probably campaigns for him as well) in this scenario, I find it extremely unlikely that he would lose in a massive landslide. I also disagree with the assertion that populism was terribly unpopular in 1992.


Populism was unpopular in 1992


Bush Sr ran on a Reagan's 4th term

Clinton ran on ending welfare as we know it , tough on crime , opposing tax and spend policies and reganomics lite

Perot ran on balencing the budget



Logged
America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗
TexArkana
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,432
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 02, 2017, 05:47:40 pm »

No way in hell does Buchanan do that well. he'd be extremely lucky to even do as "Well" as H.W did.

Considering that he manages to beat an incumbent Republican president in the primary and gets the endorsement of Perot (who probably campaigns for him as well) in this scenario, I find it extremely unlikely that he would lose in a massive landslide. I also disagree with the assertion that populism was terribly unpopular in 1992.


Populism was unpopular in 1992


Bush Sr ran on a Reagan's 4th term

Clinton ran on ending welfare as we know it , tough on crime , opposing tax and spend policies and reganomics lite

Perot ran on balencing the budget





Exactly. At his absolute best, I could see Buchanan getting Bush's map + Georgia, maybe.
At his worst, he wins 3-5 states and loses the popular vote by 15-20%.
Logged
libertpaulian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,612
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 02, 2017, 06:04:44 pm »

No way in hell does Buchanan do that well. he'd be extremely lucky to even do as "Well" as H.W did.

Considering that he manages to beat an incumbent Republican president in the primary and gets the endorsement of Perot (who probably campaigns for him as well) in this scenario, I find it extremely unlikely that he would lose in a massive landslide. I also disagree with the assertion that populism was terribly unpopular in 1992.


Populism was unpopular in 1992


Bush Sr ran on a Reagan's 4th term

Clinton ran on ending welfare as we know it , tough on crime , opposing tax and spend policies and reganomics lite

Perot ran on balencing the budget




Clinton also ran on traditionally Democratic policies such as making the rich pay their fair share, access to quality healthcare for everyone, clean air and water, and better jobs for the middle class.  He ran a very quasi-populist liberal campaign blended in with cultural Southern conservatism (with the exception of being pro-choice, of course).
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,908
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 02, 2017, 06:06:45 pm »


407: Bill Clinton/Samuel Nunn - 56.0%
131: Pat Buchanan/Donald Rumsfeld - 40.1%
Logged
darklordoftech
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,295
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 03, 2017, 08:08:43 pm »

No way in hell does Buchanan do that well. he'd be extremely lucky to even do as "Well" as H.W did.

Considering that he manages to beat an incumbent Republican president in the primary and gets the endorsement of Perot (who probably campaigns for him as well) in this scenario, I find it extremely unlikely that he would lose in a massive landslide. I also disagree with the assertion that populism was terribly unpopular in 1992.


Populism was unpopular in 1992


Bush Sr ran on a Reagan's 4th term

Clinton ran on ending welfare as we know it , tough on crime , opposing tax and spend policies and reganomics lite

Perot ran on balencing the budget




All of those policies can be populist. Populism is a type of rhetoric, not a set of policies.
Logged
Admiral Florida Man
Admiral President
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,732
Japan


P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 03, 2017, 09:15:12 pm »


504-34
Logged
HomestarSB9
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 445
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 04, 2017, 01:11:13 pm »



Gov. William J. Clinton (D-AR) / Sen. Albert Gore Jr. (D-TN) - 368 EVs
Televangelist Patrick J. Buchanan (R-VA) / Sen. Connie Mack III (R-FL) - 170 EVs
Logged
clash
CommanderClash
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,458
Bermuda


Political Matrix
E: -1.74, S: 2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 04, 2017, 04:18:59 pm »

It would have been a competitive race and certainly no landslide. A coalition consisting of the conservative Republican base that Bush abandoned, the Perot-ites, and midwestern Reagan Democrats (a group that Buchanan, with his views on trade and cultural issues, would have been well positioned to keep in the GOP fold) would have been very formidable. Clinton would have started the general election campaign with a big lead but an energetic GOP campaign and an impressive showing by Buchanan in the debates would have led to a rapid narrowing in the polls.



Clinton wins but Buchanan makes him sweat for it; Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Michigan are all decided by fewer than five points.
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,105
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 05, 2017, 09:49:54 am »



✓ Governor Bill Clinton (D-AR)/Senator Al Gore (D-TN): 430 EVs.; 54.8%
Commentator Patrick Buchanan (R-VA)/Senator Paul Laxalt (R-NV): 108 EVs.; 43.6%
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,400
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 05, 2017, 10:12:10 am »

If "populism" were unpopular in 1992, Bill Clinton would not have won.  How he governed (which still is exaggerated how conservative it was, even economically) was not how he campaigned.  For example, there was one candidate in 1992 who was openly in favor of NAFTA (or its predecessor), and it wasn't Clinton.
Logged
libertpaulian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,612
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 05, 2017, 12:06:12 pm »

If "populism" were unpopular in 1992, Bill Clinton would not have won.  How he governed (which still is exaggerated how conservative it was, even economically) was not how he campaigned.  For example, there was one candidate in 1992 who was openly in favor of NAFTA (or its predecessor), and it wasn't Clinton.
While I'd agree with you to a degree, you'd have to agree that he's pretty right-wing for a Democrat in 2017, especially given its current platform.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,393


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 05, 2017, 12:16:02 pm »

If "populism" were unpopular in 1992, Bill Clinton would not have won.  How he governed (which still is exaggerated how conservative it was, even economically) was not how he campaigned.  For example, there was one candidate in 1992 who was openly in favor of NAFTA (or its predecessor), and it wasn't Clinton.


look at this ad : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1rS9R-uNiY
Logged
America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗
TexArkana
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,432
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 05, 2017, 12:20:00 pm »



Gov. William J. Clinton (D-AR) / Sen. Albert Gore Jr. (D-TN) - 368 EVs
Televangelist Patrick J. Buchanan (R-VA) / Sen. Connie Mack III (R-FL) - 170 EVs

This is Buchanan's realistic best case scenario versus Clinton, IMO. 

*FYI, He was never a televangelist.
Logged
HisGrace
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,251
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 07, 2017, 11:18:30 am »

Probably about the same map as in real life.
Logged
clash
CommanderClash
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,458
Bermuda


Political Matrix
E: -1.74, S: 2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 07, 2017, 06:35:43 pm »



Gov. William J. Clinton (D-AR) / Sen. Albert Gore Jr. (D-TN) - 368 EVs
Televangelist Patrick J. Buchanan (R-VA) / Sen. Connie Mack III (R-FL) - 170 EVs

This is Buchanan's realistic best case scenario versus Clinton, IMO. 

*FYI, He was never a televangelist.

I assume that he got him mixed up with Pat Robertson.
Logged
HomestarSB9
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 445
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 09, 2017, 10:36:58 am »



Gov. William J. Clinton (D-AR) / Sen. Albert Gore Jr. (D-TN) - 368 EVs
Televangelist Patrick J. Buchanan (R-VA) / Sen. Connie Mack III (R-FL) - 170 EVs

This is Buchanan's realistic best case scenario versus Clinton, IMO. 

*FYI, He was never a televangelist.

Oops, I got him mixed up with someone else.
Logged
Lechasseur
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,449
France


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 01, 2017, 09:37:54 am »



Gov. William J. Clinton (D-AR) / Sen. Albert Gore Jr. (D-TN) - 368 EVs
Televangelist Patrick J. Buchanan (R-VA) / Sen. Connie Mack III (R-FL) - 170 EVs

This, except I think Clinton would also win Florida

Bill Clinton: 393 EVs
Pat Buchanan: 145 EVs
Logged
The Govanah Jake
Jake Jewvinivisk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,254


Political Matrix
E: -2.39, S: -5.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 01, 2017, 09:40:42 am »



Gov. William J. Clinton (D-AR) / Sen. Albert Gore Jr. (D-TN) - 368 EVs
Televangelist Patrick J. Buchanan (R-VA) / Sen. Connie Mack III (R-FL) - 170 EVs

This plus Montana, Georgia, and North Carolina.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines